Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in Peru

(1)

Forest Degradation (REDD) in Peru

A challenge to social inclusion and multi-level governance

(2)

Forest Degradation (REDD) in Peru

(3)

Germany’s bilateral and multilateral development cooperation. On the basis of independent research, it acts as consultant to public institutions in Germany and abroad on current issues of cooperation between developed and developing countries. Through its nine-month training course, the German Development Institute prepares German and European university graduates for careers in the field of development policy.

Dr. Fariborz Zelli is Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science, Lund University, and Associate Fellow at the Department of Environmental Policy and Natural Resources Management, German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE).

Email: Fariborz.Zelli@svet.lu.se

(4)

85

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in Peru

A challenge to social inclusion and multi-level governance

Fariborz Zelli Daniela Erler Sina Frank

Jonas-Ibrahim Hein Hannes Hotz

Anna-Maria Santa Cruz Melgarejo in cooperation with

Paul-Gregor Fischenich, ‘Conservación de Bosques Comunitarios’ Project / GIZ

Bonn 2014

(5)

Die deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available at http://

dnb.d-nb.de.

ISBN 978-3-88985-651-7

+49 (0)228 94927-0 +49 (0)228 94927-130 E-mail: die@die-gdi.de http://www.die-gdi.de

(6)

REDD is one of the latest additions to a series of incentive-based mechanisms for reducing carbon emissions. Although international negotiations have not eliminated uncertainties regarding its social, economic and political implications, many developing and emerging countries have begun to engage in REDD. Peru, the country with the world’s fourth largest tropical forest area has good reason to participate in REDD: deforestation currently causes about half of Peru’s annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

In the last eight years, public and private actors across scales have undertaken various initiatives – resulting in a multi-level governance patchwork with top-down and bottom-up processes and institutions that operate in parallel.

Our study addresses this hotchpotch and its challenges to key aspects of good governance.

First, we mapped Peru’s complex REDD governance architecture and the role of major stakeholders. At the national level, we scrutinized Peru’s readiness preparation proposal (R–PP) and its plan for the Forest Investment Programme (FIP), the REDD stakeholders roundtable, decentralization of forest-related competencies, and the difficult birth of new national laws on forests and full, prior and informed consent (FPIC). At the regional level, the study focuses on the two key regions of San Martín and Madre de Dios, mapping their most important forest policies and forms of stakeholder self- organization. Finally, we investigated four pilot projects with very different legal status that reflect the broad scope of REDD projects in Peru.

Second, we conducted a stakeholder-based assessment of different dimensions of social inclusion in Peruvian REDD governance. Despite the flexibility offered by the numerous processes, we found areas that need improvement.

In some cases these are merely teething problems; others are deeply rooted in socio-economic imbalances and political culture. The challenges include:

the insufficient financial, technical and human capacities of ministries and regional governments; a legitimacy gap due to the dominance of certain NGOs and companies; information and participation asymmetries of forest users in REDD projects, which can cause social tension; insufficient consideration of informal settlers; and insecurity regarding the distribution of REDD revenues among investors, NGOs and forest users.

(7)

• Streamlining REDD processes with policies from other sectors such as agriculture and mining, and improving spatial planning;

• Formalizing channels of communication and consultation to ensure fair and equal opportunities for exchanges between civil society and the ministries;

• Establishing an independent entity as part of a multi-stakeholder safeguard information system (SIS) that will frequently provide forest users with in-depth information about REDD processes and help users to develop their own ideas about REDD;

• Integrating forest users – not just as beneficiaries but rather as co-implementers of REDD projects;

• Encompassing push and pull factors, for example, through a levy that channels a portion of REDD revenues towards eradicating poverty in the Andean highlands in an effort to stem migration into forested areas.

REDD can only be as socially inclusive as the political, legal and social systems in which it is implemented. In Peru, this implies enhancing the overarching policies of social inclusion in the country, disentangling land titles and their governance, and improving mechanisms for verification and enforcement.

(8)

This report presents the results of a research project on the mechanism for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in Peru. The project’s main objectives were to provide: a mapping of the current multi-level REDD governance architecture; an in-depth, stakeholder-based assessment of the social inclusiveness of this governance architecture, especially regarding coordination, capacity development, participation, transparency and distribution; and policy recommendations for enhancing social inclusion and coordinating REDD.

The findings regarding these three questions are pertinent for a variety of stakeholders: scholarly experts on REDD, forest and land use, climate change and good governance; policy-makers, such as members of national environment and agriculture ministries in Lima and regional governments in the Peruvian Amazon; non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in social safeguards, forest conservation and management; REDD project developers and domestic or foreign project investors; representatives of vulnerable groups such as indigenous associations, farmers’ associations and other forest users; and practitioners of the German Development Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, GIZ) and other bilateral or multilateral agencies that are involved or are considering involvement in REDD initiatives.

Research for this report was conducted in three phases. In the preparatory phase that ran from July to October 2010, Fariborz Zelli (then at the Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik/German Development Institute, DIE, and now at Lund University) developed a plan in discussions with experts at DIE and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development (Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, BMZ). This phase included a research trip to Lima and the regions of San Martín and Madre de Dios, where Fariborz Zelli discussed the plan with policy-makers, academics and NGO representatives. He also established contacts with the project’s two counterparts, Karina Pinasco Vela of Amazónicos por la Amazonía (AMPA) and Annekathrin Linck of the GIZ, based at the Defensoría del Pueblo (the office of Peru’s public ombudsman).

The project’s second and main phase ran from November 2010 to May 2011, during which the DIE research team in Bonn prepared and conducted

(9)

Sina Frank, Jonas-Ibrahim Hein, Hannes Hotz and Anna-Maria Santa Cruz Melgarejo; and two research assistants – Riccarda Flemmer and Franziska Klutmann.

On 26 April 2011 we presented the results of our field research at a high- level stakeholder workshop in Lima, which was attended by about a hundred representatives of major stakeholder groups. Rosario Gómez Gamarra, then Peruvian Vice-Minister of the Environment, and Iván Kriss Lanegra Quispe, currently Vice-Minister of Intercultural Affairs, delivered keynote speeches.

The GIZ financially and logistically supported the workshop.

In May 2011, the research team drafted a preliminary version of this report with a detailed set of policy recommendations. A condensed Spanish- language version was published in Lima in a policy brief by the Proyecto Conservación de Bosques Comunitarios (CBC, Conservation of Community Forests) with support from the GIZ and the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMU) (Erler et al. 2011).

The results were also presented in May 2011 at a seminar jointly organized by the GIZ and the KfW German Development Bank in Eschborn, Germany.

Other presentations of the findings were given at the general conference of the European Consortium for Political Research in August 2011 and a DIE information workshop for BMZ representatives in September 2011.

The project’s third and final phase ran from summer 2011 to spring 2014.

Following our field research, the political landscape in Peru had undergone crucial changes that affected the shape of REDD governance in the country.

This included the change of presidency from Alan García to Ollanta Umala in July 2011, the adoption of a new forest law and a new national forest policy, and a new law on free, prior informed consent (FPIC).

In the third phase, our main concerns were keeping track of these and other changes and assessing their implications for REDD in Peru, especially at the national level. This report reflects the national situation in late spring 2014, whereas for the regional and project levels, updates were only possible for big developments and specific issues. Unless otherwise specified, assessments of the pilot projects and the situations in San Martín and Madre de Dios are based on our field research in 2011.

(10)

not have been possible without the important support of Paul-Gregor Fischenich and his CBC team, especially Sebastian Jung and Carlos Cubas.

Jonas-Ibrahim Hein and Hannes Hotz contributed detailed and very helpful comments to this final phase.

(11)

(12)

The research team of the Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (German Development Institute, DIE) is profoundly thankful for all the help we received while working on this report. This includes the fantastic support, cordiality and hospitality we enjoyed in Peru while conducting fieldwork.

Given this broad support, the following list cannot possibly be complete;

we apologize in advance to anyone we may have omitted. Please note that unless otherwise specified, the affiliations indicate positions at the time of our collaboration, in some cases from early 2011.

We express our deepest gratitude to five colleagues who were part of our extended team, and without whom the current form of the report would not have been possible:

• Our two personal counterparts in Peru, Annekathrin Linck (GIZ, based at the Defensoría del Pueblo) and Karina Pinasco Vela (Amazónicos por la Amazonía/Amazonian People for the Amazon, AMPA), who supported our research from the outset, coming to Germany to work with us in the preparatory phase and then continuously providing crucial information and contacts during and after our fieldwork;

• Paul-Gregor Fischenich (GIZ), based at the Peruvian Ministry of the Environment (Ministerio del Ambiente, MINAM), and his team of the BMU-financed project Conservación de Bosques Comunitarios (Conservation of Community Forests, CBC). CBC not only co-financed and co-organized our final stakeholder workshop in Lima and published a Spanish policy brief with our findings, but also greatly helped us to keep track of major changes in Peruvian REDD governance in the past two years; and

• Riccarda Flemmer and Franziska Klutmann who were our team members in the preparatory phase and significantly contributed to earlier versions of this report.

Our very special thanks go to the teams of our partner institutions in Peru for their confidence in our project and their invaluable provision of first- hand information and logistical support:

• The GIZ team based at MINAM: In addition to Paul-Gregor Fischenich, Michael Pollmann was instrumental in securing funding for our

(13)

worked extra shifts to help us to prepare the workshop and this report.

• Defensoría del Pueblo: We were privileged to receive great support from Iván Kriss Lanegra Quispe, Alicia Abanto, Elena Castro, María Jara Risco and their colleagues in Lima. They helped us to establish contacts at all levels and were key information sources with regard to social inclusion in Peru. The same goes for the Defensoría teams in San Martín and Madre de Dios, including Guimo Loayza Muñoz, Edmundo Flórez and Karina Salas.

• Servicio Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado (National Service of Protected Areas for the State, SERNANP): We are immensely grateful to Luis Alfaro in Lima and the SERNANP team in Alto Mayo led by Elva Marina Gáslac Gáloc – not only for providing us with key information and granting us access to the Bosque de Protección Alto Mayo (Alto Mayo Protected Forest, BPAM), but also for the park rangers who accompanied us to remote locations in the BPAM.

We are indebted to them for their unique insights and our exchanges with informal settlers that would have been impossible without them.

Muchísimas gracias to Roberto Carlos García Vela and Wilson Grández Armas who accompanied us for several days, and to Martin Schachner who greatly helped us to prepare our project.

• Asociación para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Integral (Association for Research and Rural Development, AIDER): We express our gratitude to the AIDER teams in Lima and Madre de Dios – including Jaime Nalvarte Armas, Carlos Sánchez Dias, Carla Merediz and Jim del Alcázar – for their great support of our field research in their pilot project with the Infierno community.

• AMPA: Along with Karina Pinasco Vela, we would like to thank Miguel Tang Tuesta and the whole AMPA team, especially for facilitating our travel to and participation in a workshop with stakeholders of their Alto Huayabamba project.

• Conservación Internacional–Perú (CI–Peru, Conservation International, Peru): Many thanks to the CI teams in Lima and San Martín, including Luis Espinel, Claudio Schneider, Eddy Mendoza, Braulio Andrade, Milagros Sandoval and Percy Summers, for supporting our field research in their BPAM pilot project.

(14)

Cabanillas Vasquez (GIZ, based at MINAM) for all their fantastic logistical support, hospitality and kindness, which made it possible for us to proceed as planned with our field research in Madre de Dios despite the social unrest at that time.

• Servicios Ecosistémicos Perú (Peruvian Ecosystem Services, SePerú):

Our special thanks to Frank Hajek, one of the leading international REDD experts, and his team in Cusco. Frank’s advice was invaluable – from making preparations to developing our final policy recommendations.

• MINKA Perú: Francisco San Martín Baldwin, a longstanding DIE partner and resource person, helped us to kick off our field research, establishing a great number of contacts for our preparatory trip in summer 2010.

In addition, we sincerely thank other stakeholders who granted, facilitated or accompanied our access to project areas and key meetings. They include Héctor Cardicel Pérez and Iván Cardenas from the Federación de Productores de Castaña de Madre de Dios (Federation of Brazil Nut Producers in Madre de Dios, FEPROCAMD), and Federico Durand Torres and Eddy Huajo Huajo from the Infierno community. We particularly like to thank the organizers and all participants of the national Grupo REDD and the regional Mesas REDD of San Martín and Madre de Dios for allowing us to observe their meetings.

Our very special thanks go to key experts and stakeholders on issues of social inclusion, forestry and REDD in Peru who either participated as keynote speakers in our final workshop or provided us with helpful suggestions that are reflected in this report and its policy recommendations. These include (in alphabetical order of affiliation at the time they consulted us): Roberto Espinoza and Germán Guanira (Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana/Interethnic Assocation for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest, AIDESEP); Lucio Pedroni (Carbon Decisions International);

Mary Menton (Center for International Forestry Research, CIFOR, and the Global Canopy Programme, GCP); Hugo Che Piu Deza (Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales/Law, Environment and Natural Resources, DAR); Stefan Salvador (Forest Stewardship Council, FSC); Carlos Alfaro Jímenez (Gobierno Regional de Madre de Dios/Regional Government of Madre de Dios, GOREMAD); Silvia Reátegui and Richard Harry Bartra

(15)

Salazar Vega (Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana/

Peruvian Amazon Research Institute, IIAP); Rosario Gómez Gamarra, Eduardo Durand López-Hurtado, Elvira Gómez Rivero, Fernando León and Julio Victor Ocaña Vidal (MINAM); Bertha Luz Alvarado Castro and Gustavo Suárez de Freitas (Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego/Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, MINAGRI); Hector Alfonso Cisneros Velarde (Programa Nacional de Conservación de Bosques para la Mitigación del Cambio Climático/National Forest Conservation Programme, PNCB);

Alberto Paniagua (Fondo de Promoción de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas/

National Support Fund for Natural Protection Areas, PROFONANPE);

Alejandro Santa María Silva (Prospectiva y Estudios Estratégicos); Manuel Pulgar Vidal, José Luis Capella, Carlos Bustamante, Simy Benzaquén, Ramón Rivero, Pablo Peña Alegría and Eddy Peña Cruz (Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental/Peruvian Society for Environmental Law, SPDA);

and Ernesto Ráez Luna (Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia/Cayetano Heredia University).

We similarly thank all our other interviewees for their collaboration, frankness and trust (see Annex III for a complete list).

We are also indebted to the institutions and people on the German side who supported us. First of all, we are grateful to the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development (BMZ), which used various channels to fund our research project. We also thank the BMZ specialists on Latin America, climate change and forestry for their helpful comments during our preparations. Our special thanks go to Kerstin Sieverdingbeck, who at the time of our field research was First Secretary of Technical and Financial Cooperation at the German Embassy in Lima.

We express special thanks to Rudolf Specht of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit, BMU).

The German implementing agencies GIZ and KfW provided us with ample opportunities to present our research plans and results at their offices in Lima, Eschborn and Frankfurt. We particularly thank Peter Saile, Tobias Wittmann and Reinhard Wolf of the GIZ, and Oliver Arnold, Rüdiger Hartmann, Klaus Liebig and Karl-Heinz Stecher of the KfW. In addition to

(16)

Tranquilino Saavedra and Gustavo Wachtel for their input and suggestions for research themes and contact points, and Rita Arbulú de Heinzelmann for her terrific logistical support during the project’s preparatory phases.

Last but not least, we would like to express our gratitude to our colleagues at the German Development Institute who supported us throughout the project.

We are especially indebted to our chief adviser Christian von Haldenwang, as well as our expert group members Tilman Altenburg, Ines Dombrowsky, Elke Herrfahrdt and Imme Scholz. For organizational and logistical help, we thank Thomas Fues, Regine Mehl and their team at the Education and Training Department.

Finally, for her huge help with editing the complete text, a big thank you to Nancy du Plessis. Likewise, our special thanks to Ines Waigand, Stefan Eibisch and Hanna Schmole for their patience and support with the painstaking task of formatting this report.

Bonn, August 2014 Fariborz Zelli Daniela Erler Sina Frank

Jonas-Ibrahim Hein Hannes Hotz

Anna-Maria Santa Cruz Melgarejo

(17)

(18)

Abbreviations

Executive summary 1

1 The Peruvian Amazon 13

1.1 The Peruvian Amazon’s ecological, economic

and sociocultural relevance 13

1.2 The state of Peru’s forests and trends in deforestation 14

1.3 Drivers of deforestation 17

2 REDD 18

2.1 The evolution of REDD in international politics 18 2.1.1 REDD in international climate negotiations 19 2.1.2 Beyond the UNFCCC: other major partnerships and

funding institutions 21

2.1.3 Proposals for an international funding mechanism 25

2.2 The REDD mechanism 27

2.2.1 The REDD baseline 27

2.2.2 Domestic approaches to REDD 27

2.2.3 The REDD project cycle 30

2.3 Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) 32

2.4 Key challenges to REDD 33

2.4.1 Technical challenges 34

2.4.2 Social and political challenges 35

3 Major actors, institutions and processes in

Peruvian REDD Governance 37

3.1 National level 38

3.1.1 Major actors and relevant institutions 38

3.1.2 Legal frameworks 48

(19)

3.2 Regional level 62

3.2.1 San Martín 62

3.2.2 Madre de Dios 66

3.3 Project level 72

3.3.1 Bosque de Protección Alto Mayo (BPAM) 73 3.3.2 Concesión para Conservación Alto Huayabamba (CCAH) 76

3.3.3 Proyecto REDD Castañero 78

3.3.4 Comunidad Nativa Ese’eja de Infierno 80 3.4 Summary: the importance of social inclusion and

coordination 81 4 Social inclusion and coordination in

Peruvian REDD governance 82

4.1 Analytical framework 82

4.1.1 Five dimensions of social inclusion 82

4.1.2 Three levels of analysis 84

4.1.3 Participatory methods and triangulation 87

4.2 Capacities 88

4.2.1 National level 88

4.2.2 Regional level 90

4.2.3 Project level 95

4.3 Coordination 96

4.4 Participation 101

(20)

4.6 Distribution 108

5 Policy options for Peruvian REDD governance 112

5.1 Capacity 113

5.2 Coordination 115

5.3 Participation 117

5.4 Information 120

5.5 Distribution 121

6 Conclusions 124

(21)

Annexes

Annex I: Dimensions and indicators of good governance and

social inclusion 145

Annex II: Research methods 156

Annex III: Interviewees 159

Annex IV: Programme of the final workshop in Lima 176

Figures

Figure 1: Institutional complexity of REDD governance 23 Figure 2: Structure and positioning of actors on the emerging

REDD+ credit value chain 30

Figure 3: Public actors in the forest sector on the national level

in Peru as of 2011 40

Figure 4: Influence mapping of actors in Peruvian REDD governance at the national level; nodal point of

MINAM disabled, December 2010 90

Figure 5: Influence of actor groups on REDD governance in

San Martín, December 2010 91

Figure 6: Influence mapping San Martín, December 2010 92 Figure 7: Influence mapping Madre de Dios, April 2011 94 Figure 8: Structure proposed for the OCBR 97

(22)

Table 1: Annual and absolute deforestation rates in the

Peruvian Amazon by region (departamento) 15

Table 2: Land use of deforested areas 16

Table 3: REDD funding sources in Peru 25

Table 4: NGOs involved in the national REDD governance

process (2011) 43

Table 5: Land-use rights and authorities 59

Table 6: Field-based actors and market intermediaries in

Madre de Dios (2011) 67

Table 7: REDD projects analysed (2007–2011) 72 Table 8: Indicators of coordination, information and

participation 149

Table 9: Indicators of distribution 153

(23)

(24)

ACA Amazon Conservation Association

ACCA Asociación para la Conservación de la Cuenca Amazónica / Association for the Conservation of the Amazon Basin AIDER Asociación para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Integral /

Association for Research and Integral Development AIDESEP Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana /

Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest

AMPA Amazónicos por la Amazonía / Amazon People for the Amazon ANA Autoridad Nacional del Agua / National Water Authority ARA Autoridad Regional Ambiental / Regional Authority for the

Environment BAM Bosques Amazónicos BAU business-as-usual

BMU Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und

Reaktorsicherheit / German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety

BMZ Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung / German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development

BPAM Bosque de Protección Alto Mayo / Alto Mayo Protected Forest CAMDE Conservación Ambiental y Desarrollo en el Perú / Environmental

Conservation and Development in Peru CAN Climate Action Network

CBC Conservación de Bosques Comunitarios CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CCAH Concesión para Conservación Alto Huayabamba / Alto Huayabamba Conservation Concession

CCBA Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance CDI Carbon Decisions International

(25)

CEDISA Centro de Desarrollo e Investigación de la Selva Alta / Center for the Development and Research of Mountain Forests

CEPLAN Centro Nacional de Planeamiento Estratégico / National Centre for Strategic Planning

CI–Peru Conservación International, Perú / Conservation International – Peru

CIAM Consejo Interregional Amazónico / Interregional Council on the Amazon

CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research

CIMA Centro de Conservación, Investigación y Manejo de Áreas

Naturales / Center for the Conservation, Research and Management of Natural Areas

CMLTI Comisión Multisectorial de Lucha contra la Tala Ilegal / Multi- sectoral Commission for the Fight Against Illegal Logging CNCC Comisión Nacional de Cambio Climático / National Commission

on Climate Change

CODEPISAM Coordinadora de Defensa y Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de San Martín / Coordinator of the Development and Defence of Indigenous Peoples of the Region of San Martín

COFOPRI Organismo de Formalización de la Propiedad Informal / Agency for the Formalization of Informal Property

COICA Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica / Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin

CONAP Confederación de Nacionalidades Amazónicas del Perú / Confederation of Amazonian Nationalities of Peru

CONFIEP Confederación Nacional de Instituciones Empresariales Privadas / National Confederation of Private Business Institutions

COP Conference of the Parties

DAR Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales / Law, Environment and Natural Resources

DFID Department for International Development (UK)

(26)

DIE Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik / German Development Institute

EU European Union

EUR euro(s)

FADEMAD Federación Agraria Departamental de Madre de Dios / Federation of Small Farmers of Madre de Dios

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

FENAMAD Federación Nativa del Río Madre de Dios y Afluentes / Federation for Native Communities of Madre de Dios

FEPRIKESAM Federación Regional de Pueblos Indígenas Kechwas de la Región San Martín / Regional Federation of the Indigenous Quechua Peoples of the San Martín Region

FEPROCAMD Federación de Productores de Castaña de Madre de Dios / Federation of Brazil Nut Producers in Madre de Dios

FERIAAM Federación Regional de Indígenas Awajún del Alto Mayo / Awajun Regional Federation of Alto Mayo

FIP Forest Investment Programme

FONAM Fondo Nacional del Ambiente / National Envrionmental Fund FONDAM Fondo de las Américas / Americas Fund

FONDEBOSQUE Fondo de Promoción del Desarrollo Forestal / Forest Development Promotion Fund

FPIC free, prior and informed consent FSC Forest Stewardship Council

GCF Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force GCP Global Canopy Programme

GHG greenhouse gas

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

(27)

GORESAM Gobierno Regional de San Martín / Regional Government of San Martín

GRN Gerencia Regional de Recursos Naturales y Gestión del Medio Ambiente / Regional Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management

GTZ See GIZ

ha hectare(s)

ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre

IIAP Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana / Peruvian Amazon Research Institute

ILO International Labour Organization

IKI International Climate Initiative of the BMU

INDEPA Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo de Pueblos Andinos, Amazónicos y Afroperuanos / National Institute for the Development of Andean, Amazonian and Afroperuvian Peoples

INIBICO Instituto de Investigación Biológica de las Cordilleras Orientales INRENA Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales / National Institute of

Natural Resources

IPAM Instituto de Investigación Ambiental de la Amazonía / Amazon Environmental Research Institute

ITDG Intermediate Technology Development Group ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KfW KfW Entwicklungsbank / German Development Bank

MEF Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas / Ministry of Economics and Finance

MINAG Ministerio de Agricultura / Ministry of Agriculture

MINAGRI Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego / Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

MINAM Ministerio del Ambiente / Ministry of the Environment

(28)

MRV measurement, reporting and verification

MTC Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones / Ministry of Transportation and Communications

NGO non-governmental organization

OCBR Órgano de Coordinación de Bosques y REDD+ / Coordination Unit for Forests and REDD+

OEFA Organismo de Evaluación y Fiscalización Ambiental / Environmental Evaluation and Financial Control Authority OSINFOR Organismo de Supervisión de los Recursos Forestales y de Fauna

Silvestre / Agency for the Supervision of Forest and Wildlife Resources

PCM Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros / Presidency of the Council of Ministers

PEN Peruvian Neuvo Sol, currently valued at EUR 0.26 PES Payment for Ecosystem Services (see PSA)

PNCB Programa Nacional de Conservación de Bosques para la Mitigación del Cambio Climático / National Forest Conservation Programme

PRA participatory rural appraisal

PROFONANPE Fondo de Promoción de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas / National Support Fund for Natural Protection Areas

PSA Pago por Servicios Ambientales (see PES)

REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation REDDES Reducing Deforestation and Forest Degradation and Enhancing

Environmental Services

RIA REDD+ Indígena Amazónico / Amazon Indigenous REDD+

R–PIN Readiness Plan Idea Note R–PP Readiness Preparation Proposal

SePerú Servicios Ecosistémicos Perú / Ecosystem Services Peru SERFOR Servicio Nacional Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre / National Forest

and Wildlife Authority

(29)

SFM Sustainable Forest Management SIS safeguard information system

SPDA Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental / Peruvian Society for Environmental Law

TAP Technical Advisory Panel

UNALM Universidad Agraria de la Molina / National Agrarian University – La Molina

UNAMAD Universidad Nacional Amazónica de Madre de Dios / National Amazonian University of Madre de Dios

UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFF United Nations Forum on Forests

UN–REDD United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

UNSM Universidad Nacional de San Martín / National University of San Martín

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development VCS Verified Carbon Standard

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

ZEE Zonificación Ecológica y Economíca / Ecological and Economic Zoning

(30)

German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 1

Executive summary

Why Peru? Why REDD?

There are several good – and urgent – reasons to undertake a study about efforts to reduce deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon.

What first comes to mind is the environmental urgency. With around 73 million hectares (ha) of tropical forest covering nearly 60 per cent of its territory, Peru has the fourth largest area of tropical forest in the world, and the second largest share of the Amazon after Brazil. More than 80 per cent of this tropical forest is classified as ‘primary forest’: it is biologically diverse and rich in natural resources. In the last years, the country has lost as much as 160,000 ha of forest per year, which accounts for about half of Peru’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A recent study holds that the annual loss has decreased to 103,380 ha (Llactayo / Salcedo / Victoria 2013).

These trends are directly connected to socio-economic drivers, and thus are of immediate relevance to development. A major reason for Amazonian deforestation and forest degradation is the migration of poor farmers from the Andean highlands. Some of these farmers continue their traditional patterns of subsistence agriculture in the Amazon, but most grow cash crops or engage in the exploitation of gold and other resources – activities that cause severe loss of forests and often create irreversible damage. Further causes of deforestation are increases in (largely illegal) logging, commercial agriculture, mining, gas and oil operations and drug production. Road construction through the Amazon facilitates these damaging activities.

Taking these drivers into account, the Peruvian government is seeking to link deforestation more closely with the goals of development cooperation. An early initiative was the government’s 10-year strategy to attain zero deforestation by 2021. Announcing the initiative in 2008, then Peruvian Minister of the Environment Antonio Brack called for the international community to provide USD 20 million annually as part of the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism.

(31)

REDD is one of the latest additions to a series of incentive-based economic mechanisms for environmental or climate governance of the last 15 to 20 years (Bernstein 2002). Proponents of REDD seek to provide significant economic incentives for the sustainable use and conservation of forests while also reducing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. However, the heated international debate about REDD in climate negotiations and other arenas leaves open questions about REDD’s social, economic and environmental consequences.

Despite this inconclusiveness and uncertainty, a large number of developing countries, including those with the world’s largest shares of tropical forests, have begun to create institutional and programmatic infrastructures based on REDD. In recent years, Peru’s national and regional governments have been seeking to establish a REDD governance system.

German development cooperation – in particular the KfW Development Bank and the GIZ, as well as the BMU International Climate Initiative – is supporting this new instrument in Peru through a new national agency to coordinate forest- and REDD-related processes (pending at the time of writing). Other bilateral and multilateral institutions, including two major funding mechanisms under the World Bank, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the Forest Investment Programme (FIP), are cooperating with Peruvian partners.

These national and international approaches coincide with a variety of processes that Peruvian stakeholders have initiated at the regional and local levels over the last eight years, including different arenas of self- organization and a growing number of very diverse pilot projects.

These endeavours have created an intricate patchwork of multi-level governance with diverse top-down and bottom-up processes and institutions operating in parallel. This study analyses this complexity and the challenges it creates for key aspects of good governance.

Two of these challenges are particularly urgent and merit special attention: First, coordination is needed within and across scales in order to provide a coherent legal, institutional and political framework for REDD-relevant activities at the national, regional and project levels.

Second, social inclusion across different administrative levels – involving public, civil society and private actors – must be increased if REDD is to be fair and effective in Peru. Representatives of various stakeholder

(32)

German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 3 communities – including indigenous peoples and other vulnerable forest users – need access to the relevant policy arenas and project planning processes. Participatory inclusion and appropriate conditions for sharing project benefits are key to obtaining local support and legitimacy for REDD and generating alternative livelihoods.

REDD’s relative novelty makes it premature to assess the long-term distributive consequences of REDD governance in Peru. But assessing the emerging processes can help to identify barriers to coordination and social inclusion before they are perpetuated in Peruvian REDD governance. This is urgent because the country is seeking to enter the REDD implementation phase and is attempting to operationalize longer- term processes of funding, social safeguards and monitoring. Unless capacity development, participation, transparency, and opportunities for fair access and benefit-sharing are ensured, major domestic tensions will persist.

These tensions are much older than REDD. They concern forest and land use, poverty and its regional distribution, ethnic pluralism and political culture. REDD is embedded in these longstanding debates: they will shape its further development and vice versa. People involved in REDD initiatives were harshly reminded of the conflict in debates about forest use during violent clashes over revisions to the Peruvian national forest law in the town of Bagua in the Chachapoyas region in June 2009. Two days of bloody confrontation between indigenous protesters, the police and the army led to the reported deaths of 23 policemen and 10 civilians.

Research goals and questions

In light of this urgency, the overall objective of our study is to contribute to a socially inclusive and coherent formulation and implementation of REDD in Peru across national and sub-national scales. We proceeded in three steps.

First, we mapped the current multi-level governance architecture on REDD in Peru (chapter 3). At the national level we scoped out processes, institutions and actors that are of major relevance for REDD governance, including not only processes directly geared to REDD, but also major

(33)

elements of forest and land- use governance in Peru. To provide a similarly detailed mapping of REDD governance at the regional level we focused on two of the nine Peruvian regions whose territories include parts of the Amazon. We selected San Martín, the region with the country’s highest deforestation rate, which the national government had designated as the pilot region for REDD activities; and Madre de Dios, which includes one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots and which many observers predict will undergo the country’s most dramatic increase in deforestation in coming years. We selected pilot projects from these two regions to illustrate the diversity of processes, institutions and actors at the project level.

Second, we concentrated our assessment of this governance architecture on five dimensions of social inclusion and coordination (chapter 4).

These dimensions reflect challenges to the establishment and success of REDD in Peru. They can be divided into the following research questions but are not mutually exclusive:

• Capacity:

– Who are the relevant public and non-state actors affected by REDD at the national, regional and local levels?

– What are their capacities, capacity gaps and inequalities?

– What influence do the different actors have?

• Coordination:

– What is the level of coordination within and across actors, sectors and levels of governance?

• Participation:

– What is the level of participation of various stakeholder groups in REDD processes at different governance levels?

• Information:

– How much transparency and access to information (including FPIC) about REDD processes is there at different levels of governance?

(34)

• Distribution:

– What are the challenges to distribution – fair access and benefit- sharing?

– How much do the most vulnerable members of Peruvian society, such as indigenous and peasant communities, benefit from REDD policies and projects?

We sought to design our research process in a socially inclusive manner.

To this end, we mostly assessed these five dimensions by using qualitative and participatory methods such as interviews and network mappings in an attempt to capture different stakeholders’ views of the state of REDD in Peru. What do the different groups make of the different REDD agenda-setting, decision-making and implementation processes? Do they feel that they and other relevant actors are sufficiently included? How would they address shortcomings?

Third, we used this stakeholder-based assessment to develop policy recommendations (chapter 5), for the Peruvian political process and for German development cooperation, regarding, inter alia:

• Identification of bottlenecks, barriers and key addressees for capacity- building in these processes;

• Options for improving the consideration and participation of local communities and indigenous groups at different levels of REDD governance;

• Options for enhancing the coordination between evolving bottom-up and top-down processes of REDD governance;

• Options for dovetailing REDD policies with policies in other sectors (mining, agriculture, infrastructure, etc.), development plans and decentralization efforts;

• Options for enhancing the division of labour between public and non- state actors in the various REDD-related processes; and

• Options for a REDD that focuses on conditions in the Amazon basin but incorporates measures to eradicate poverty in the Andean highlands, one of the root causes of deforestation.

(35)

Structure and findings

Chapter 1 provides a brief overview of the Peruvian Amazon’s ecological, economic and sociocultural relevance. We sketch the condition, trends and drivers of deforestation in Peru and take a closer look at the San Martín and Madre de Dios regions, the case studies for our regional analysis.

Chapter 2 introduces the concept of REDD, starting with how the instrument evolved in international climate politics from 2005 through 2013. We show that the various bi- and multilateral arenas and funds suffer from a lack of coordination. Negotiations under different umbrellas produced a patchwork of approaches that have caused considerable duplication and uncertainty about the types and sources of future funding, verification and governance mechanisms. We then describe different approaches to operationalizing REDD, including the Peruvian

‘nested approach’. International actors’ lack of clarity is reflected not only in the diversity of approaches, but also in uncertainty about their distributive effects: while REDD could enhance the livelihoods of forest- dependent local communities, it could just as well further marginalize such communities. We conclude by highlighting potential pitfalls and loopholes that are discussed in the literature, such as the risk that most of the values generated will end up outside of a project zone or even outside the host country. Further challenges to REDD include technical issues like permanence, leakage and additionality, and sociopolitical problems, including the gaps in governance and social inclusion that are at the heart of our study.

Chapter 3 presents the first step in our analysis of the Peruvian REDD governance architecture. We introduce key actors and present REDD- relevant legal frameworks, institutions and policy processes at the national, regional and local levels (for San Martín and Madre de Dios).

Focal points of our analytical overview included:

• The national REDD roundtable, the process for a national Readiness Preparation Proposal (R–PP) and the national plan for FIP (see section 3.1.4); the PNCB; consultation and decision-making processes for forest strategies and the new forest law (3.1.1 and 3.1.2); decentralization processes (3.1.4);

(36)

• Processes related to the regional forest strategy of San Martín (3.2.1);

REDD roundtables of San Martín (3.2.1) and Madre de Dios (3.2.2);

• Four local REDD pilot projects with their respective planning processes and design, as well as their implementation processes, where applicable: two in San Martín –Bosque de Protección Alto Mayo (BPAM) and Concesión para Conservación Alto Huayabamba (CCAH); and two in Madre de Dios – Proyecto REDD Castañero and Comunidad Nativa Ese’eja de Infierno (3.3).

Overall, we found that the highly diverse domestic REDD governance landscape mirrors the fragmented architecture of REDD at the international level. This is shown in the diversity of our four pilot projects. They differ considerably in their legal status (protected forest, conservation concession, timer extraction concession and community title), reflecting the broad scope and openness regarding what can count as a ‘REDD’ project in Peru. This diversity of REDD governance across levels can imply opportunities and flexibility on one hand and uncertainties and coordination challenges on the other. It may also imply greater chances of social inclusion for some stakeholders and lesser chances for others. The mapping results strengthened our resolve to look closer at challenges to good governance.

Chapter 4 presents our assessment of social inclusion and coordination in Peru’s REDD governance processes. We introduce our framework for a stakeholder-based analysis of the processes, then describe our findings, using a matrix structure with the five dimensions of social inclusion and coordination on one side and three levels of analysis (national, regional and project) on the other. (A more detailed account of our definitions, indicators and participatory methods based on Ostrom’s community governance approach and social network analysis is found in Annexes I and II). We then present our findings along the five dimensions.

We discovered that in Peru REDD’s initial stage was dynamic – with sprawling pilot projects, public-private cooperation and information activities. But we also found various areas that need improvement, some of which are merely teething problems, while others are deeply rooted in socio-economic imbalances and the political culture.

(37)

• Capacity:

– The financial, technical and human capacities of ministries and regional governments are insufficient.

– The dominance of certain NGOs and companies in Peruvian REDD governance gives cause for concern.

– Knowledge and other capacities to help natural resource users become integrated in REDD governance processes are lacking.

• Coordination:

– Public REDD policies are not aligned with policies in other sectors (e.g. mining and agriculture).

– The division of labour between public and private actors is unclear.

– The regional government of Madre de Dios (and partly also in San Martín) is insufficiently coordinated with other regional REDD processes, due to lack of capacities and fluctuating staff.

– Project developers, intermediaries and forest users are poorly coordinated.

• Participation:

– The rules for participation and decision-making in civil society platforms (especially the REDD Roundtable) and between civil society and ministries are unclear.

– The limited participation of natural resource users in REDD project development creates suspicion, distrust, social tension and low motivation.

– The great diversity of forums and the complexity of information surrounding REDD may perpetuate and even widen gaps in Peruvian forest politics and management. While actors with the know-how, personal and financial resources may be able to join and shape the different debates and engage in pilot projects, most of the poor and vulnerable forest users are totally unaware of these debates and forums.

(38)

• Access to information:

– Many of the informative workshops on REDD are biased towards certain aspects or preferences, especially if their organizers have vested interests, such as commercializing ecosystem services.

– Formal dissemination mechanisms for informing about REDD across scales are lacking.

– There is a significant information divide between grassroots organizations (e.g. indigenous federations) and the communities they represent.

– Severe information asymmetries exist on the project level between developers, intermediaries and users, as well as mistrust and allegations.

• Distribution:

– The PNCB is too narrowly focused: it does not consider root causes of deforestation, especially frontier migration.

– The PNCB similarly does not address the situation of informal forest users.

– The compensation scheme envisaged by the PNCB does not cover opportunity costs of deforestation.

– REDD projects in protected areas will not benefit informal users unless there are some efforts to include them, such as conservation ‘contracts’.

– Insecurity about distribution of REDD revenues – among companies, NGOs and users, and also between different types of users – could create social tensions and conflicts.

– The long delay between the start of a REDD project and potential payments decreases the motivation of forest users and may further reduce trust.

Based on these results, chapter 5 presents the policy options we developed and discussed with different stakeholders, including forest users and leading experts on Peruvian REDD. Our main recommendations include:

(39)

• The human, financial and technical capacities of MINAM and the regional governments must be significantly scaled up in order for them to lead the various REDD processes.

• REDD processes must be dovetailed with and incorporated into the policies, strategies and visions of other sectors and levels. This implies strengthening the cooperation between MINAM and the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego, MINAGRI), other national ministries and regional governments, especially to improve spatial planning and zoning.

• Channels of communication, institutional access and decision-making must be more formalized to ensure fair and balanced opportunities to participate in processes involving civil society and ministries.

• The considerable asymmetries of information about REDD available to public actors, NGOs, project developers, natural resource users and their representatives must be eliminated. Frequent and in-depth provision of information, especially by an independent entity, along with a multi-stakeholder safeguard information system (SIS), may help avoid some tensions.

• Project organizers should integrate forest users and inhabitants not as mere beneficiaries but as co-implementers, throughout all phases of a REDD project.

• An all-encompassing approach to REDD is needed that combats poverty in the Andes, one of the root causes of deforestation in the Amazon basin. Allocating forest resources is crucial, but doing only that is myopic. Levying a portion of REDD project revenues into development projects in the Andean highlands is one option.

• Taking an all-encompassing approach means embedding REDD policies in broader reform efforts. REDD can only be as good as the political, legal and social systems in which it is implemented. This implies enhancing the overarching policies for social inclusion in Peru, disentangling and clarifying land titles and their governance, and significantly improving verification and enforcement mechanisms.

Chapter 6 summarizes our main findings and the challenges: What is needed are: an integral vision that combines push and pull factors and

(40)

German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 11 addresses the root causes of deforestation; a clear legal and institutional framework; and an effective and legitimate division of labour among stakeholders. We conclude with a brief overview of the developments in science and politics that could change the shape of the highly dynamic REDD governance processes in Peru. Now in a relatively early stage – between late preparation and early implementation – this dynamic justifies a timely analysis of social inclusion to ensure that this crucial aspect is not sidelined later. We hope that our analysis contributes to this urgent need.

(41)

(42)

1 The Peruvian Amazon

1.1 The Peruvian Amazon’s ecological, economic and sociocultural relevance

Measuring 5.5 million km², the Amazon rainforest is the largest continuous tropical rainforest on earth (de Jong et al. 2010). With 13 per cent, Peru holds the second largest share of the Amazon rainforest after Brazil: if the region’s ecological balance is to be maintained, the Peruvian Amazon must be protected. Conserving the world’s remaining tropical rainforests is vitally important because of their ecological, economic and sociocultural functions.

First of all, forests serve to store the earth’s carbon. By sequestering carbon, forests act as natural CO₂sinks, playing a pivotal role in preventing global climate change (UNEP / FAO / UNFF 2009). Deforestation not only decreases the world’s capacity to store CO₂ but also causes huge amounts of stored carbon to be released. According to the latest estimates, deforestation accounts for about 15 per cent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (van der Werf et al. 2009). In Peru, deforestation and forest degradation are responsible for nearly half of all GHG emissions (MINAM 2010a). Peru’s forest resources play an important role within the global carbon cycle by storing 8,560 million metric tons of carbon (FAO 2010b).

Forests also contribute to local hydrological cycles and climate conditions.

Trees and plants are instrumental in intercepting precipitation, and evapotranspiration – the combined release of water vapour from vegetation and soil – is highly dependent on the extent of local forests. Deforestation means there is less water in the hydrological cycle, which can lead to reduced precipitation in the region (Laurance / Williamson 2001). The water storage capacity and soil-protecting function of trees help forests to prevent erosion and soil degradation, thus protecting human settlements against landslides.

Key to livelihoods the world over, forests provide living space and ecosystem services for 1.8 billion human beings (Hirschberger 2007). Human dependence on forest resources varies from economic reliance on certain forest products to complete dependence on forests as a natural habitat.

The economic functions of forests include timber and non-timber forest production; in Peru, the sustainable production of Brazil nuts constitutes an important source of income, especially in the Madre de Dios region (MINAM 2010b). Apart from the economic functions of forests and their use as living

(43)

space, Peruvian forests are culturally relevant, with many indigenous groups dependent on them for their livelihoods and for maintaining their lifestyles.

Forests are crucial to the cultural identity and social cohesion of indigenous peoples. Indeed, 42 of Peru’s 44 different ethnic groups live in the Amazon region (CONADIB 2008).

Finally, forests are essential for preserving biodiversity. Tropical rainforests feature the world’s highest rate of biological diversity, with innumerable animal and plant species. Thanks to its share of the Amazon, Peru belongs to the planet’s 10 ‘megadiverse’ countries that together account for more than half of the world’s biodiversity. The Peruvian Amazon is home to about 25,000 plant species, 30 per cent of which are endemic. With about 2,000 species, Peru ranks first in fish species worldwide; with over 1,800 species, it ranks second in birds (ibid.). Some 760 animal species are endemic to Peru. Apart from the ethical obligation to protect this diversity, there are also anthropocentric reasons to do so, including unexplored potentials for medicine and pharmaceutics.

1.2 The state of Peru’s forests and trends in deforestation

The world’s forest resources have shrunken to an area of 40 million km² – or 31 per cent of the earth’s land surface. Global deforestation slowed in the past decade: whereas in the period 1990 to 2000 approximately 160,000 km² of forest land were lost each year, between 2000 and 2010 the annual forest loss dropped to 130,000 km² (FAO 2010b).

In Peru, the forest cover has been declining slowly but steadily. Since 1975, Peru has lost 5.3 per cent of its forest cover as a result of anthropogenic land conversion – mostly into agricultural land – or from natural disasters such as forest fires. Deforestation was most rapid in the 1980s, then slowed in the late 1990s and has since continued at a slow pace (FAO 2010a). In the period from 2005 to 2010, Peruvian forested areas decreased by 1,500 km² or 0.22 per cent each year (FAO 2010b). Recent figures from MINAM show that annual loss has decreased to 1,060 km² (Llactayo / Salcedo / Victoria 2013). This trend notwithstanding, some economic sectors and activities are maintaining or even increasing deforestation in the Amazon. Business-as- usual (BAU) scenarios predict a deforested area of 73,000 km² by 2050, another 10 per cent of the current forest cover (Soares-Filho et al. 2006). Piu and Menton (2013, 9) expect much higher figures because of the expanding

(44)

German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 15 agricultural and extractive sectors and the cumulative effects of road construction, agriculture, ranching, mining, hydropower, hydrocarbons and urban expansion. They refer to worst-case scenarios that forecast between 196,000 and 311,000 km² of additional deforestation by 2050.

Because its forest resources are declining rather slowly, Peru is still one of the most forested countries in the world. In 2010, forest resources covered 730,000 km² or nearly 60 per cent of Peru’s national territory (FAO 2010b).

Since 89 per cent of these forest resources consist of primary forest, they have high carbon storage capacities and great biodiversity.

However, the extent of forest varies by region. Peru’s coastal area is sparsely forested while east of the Andes there are large mountain forests and hillside forests. Peru’s very different types of forest are generally due to altitude and average annual precipitation. Andean forests consist of various types of tropical montane forests, tropical dry forests and shrubbery forests. Amazon

Table 1: Annual and absolute deforestation rates in the Peruvian Amazon by region (departamento)

Departamento Deforestación anual (has)

Deforestación absoluta (has)

Tasa de deforestación (ha/año) 2009-2010 2010-2011

San Martín 39,760.16 30,797.53 70,557.69 35,278.85

Loreto 24,210.75 36,200.84 60,411.59 30,205.80

Ucayali 16,342.14 9,942.41 26,284.55 13,142.28

Huánuco 12,785.28 7,777.46 20,562.74 10,281.37

Madre de Dios 5,402.23 5,959.29 11,361.52 5,680.76

Pasco 3,998.02 3,937.90 7,935.92 3,967.96

Amazonas 3,981.32 4,541.77 8,523.09 4,261.55

Cusco 739.70 1,457.95 2,197.65 1,098.83

Junín 332.57 1,514.10 1,846.67 923.34

Source: Llactayo / Salcedo / Victoria (2013)